Bigfoot - Ferocious And Invincible ?

The only report that I'm aware of is the Alaskan fisherman on monster quest that saw a giant grizzly on the beach run away from a bf when it approached the beach from out of the woods nearby.

A traveling squatch would probably run into a traveling bear on a frequent basis. The result of this would be that they each avoid each other the vast majority of the time. Now if there were food involved that both wanted, there could be conflict. Even so, if a squatch wanted to drive off a bear, it could do so by pelting it with rocks and other thrown items from a safe distance. If a bear tried to drive off a squatch, the squatch could retreat to a safe distance and take the same approach, pelting it until it goes away or takes a shot to the head.

Theoretically, a squatch could actually kill a bear with a large, well-thrown rock, though I don't know of any reports where a squatch has been observed using rocks to kill things. It may be that they just don't think this way and prefer, when killing, to do it by brute force. There's some sense to this. A missed throw, or a glancing blow, may allow prey to escape, whereas closing in and killing prey hand-to-hand is a surer bet, for hunting. But to drive something that you don't want to eat away from something that you do want to protect or obtain, thrown objects should serve, unless it just simply hasn't occurred to them to throw rocks at bears. They seem to do so with humans readily and accurately enough, though.

A bear encountering a group of squatch, would probably be driven off pretty easily and a bear that realizes a group of squatch are in an area would likely avoid the area and them.

In the case where a lone bear manages to get the drop on a lone squatch, both are likely to come away in bad shape. A bear may be dumb enough to do this. I think a squatch would have to be desperate, though, to risk close contact with a bear. Even if a squatch can dispatch a bear with ease, why risk injury?

We have the advantage over squatch because we work as a big group and have superior technology. Squatch would have the advantage over bears as a small group that can cause pain at a distance (superior technology).

Bears probably learn young that squatch are painful. If I were a squatch, I'd start throwing rocks at bears every time I saw one, just to get the message across to the bear that hanging around a squatch hurts.

0

For those who have not personally encountered a bigfoot, the proponent/skeptic debate comes down to nothing more than opposing belief systems.

Polar bears are descended from brown bears and diverged only 150,000 years ago. The polar bear could even be considered a subspecies of brown bear...

The fact that polar bear-grizzly hybrids are fertile is about all the evidence you need to show how closely they are related...

The only question is, should we call it a Pizzly Bear or a Grolar Bear?

...and would that make a bigfoot a humanzee????

I find this interesting. I stumbled on the humanzee video's while looking for something else. Not that the thought of hybridization hadn't already crossed my mind, but what stood out in the 6 video series is when they discussed the Liger, and said that they were almost always sterile, as is the case with other animals that have been hybridized. I also found it interesting that the Liger was larger than the tiger or the lion, because of the affect of the cross breeding having something to do with the growth hormone not functioning properly. So the obvious conclusion (in my mind) would be that BF could be the result of such a hybridization. However, In the end, it doesn't work-because if we believe stories by native Americans, BF has been around too long.

But there are a lot of reports that indicate that if these are real, a bear might not want to count its chickens before getting in a scrap with one.

0

"Learning how to think" really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. it means being conscious and aware enough to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot or will not exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed...David Foster Wallace

Animals in the wild don't normally randomly assault one another with no regard for the possibility of injury to themselves.I just don't see a Bigfoot, regardless of size, ambushing a full grown Grizzly bear or vice versa unless there is not an option of a safe exit by either party. Way too hazardous for both, IMO. Neither can afford a serious injury that would compromise the ability to find and catch food. I think predator animals have an innate sense of what is worth fighting over and what's not.That said, I think a big Grizzly would and could dominate a BF, only because it is built for ripping it's prey up with those claws and jaws. Plus its lower center of gravity makes it a tough customer. Even a good sized Black bear would be a formidable opponent, for the same reasons.Throwing the intelligence factor into the mix certainly adds a twist to the possibilities of just what a Bigfoot could or would use as a weapon against another mammal. I suppose it's possible that a nine foot tall, 700 pound Sasquatch wielding a club, could beat on a Bear hard enough to convince it to back off. Its size alone is probably more than enough to make any other predator species think twice about mixing it up.

I agreed with everything you said about assaulting another with no regard, but we differ on the whole bear dominates the sasquatch thing. Good post though..

Another thread that turned into BF v Grizzly. I do agree that most encounters probably end very uneventfully, with both parties going their own way. There is no need to expend the energy, nor risk injury without cause.

I still an going to side with the grizzly though, as I have in the past. I would also take the tiger over the orangutan - everyday of the week. I'm not sure why people are giving BF the nod over the bear in agility, have any of you seen a bear actually fight and attack something? They are amazingly quick and agile and they are simply a ball of muscle, teeth and claws.

The tiger against orang isn't a good fight I'd say. Firstly, cats are supreme killers, designed to bring a quick death. Their agility and instinct when it comes to a kill is unrivaled amongst animals. The only reason your pet dog strikes fear in a 10 lb cat is because of the size difference. If you put a 50lb cat against a 100lb dog...I'd take the cat everytime. Cats have a actual "kill" bite, meaning they either go for the strangle hold or the vertebrae. While dogs (dog family) rarely exhibit even the strangle technique. They typically "worry" bite prey to death.

So there's not many animals that could survive a tiger attack, I even doubt the grizzly could.

I feel the squatch is just to powerful and intelligent for a bear. People who think otherwise are thinking of squatch in the manner you would think of a domesticated man. And I know we learn in horror movies that claws are just the ultimate, but in truth that opposable thumb thing can do so much more damage coupled with a brain.

For all we know a BF is smart enough and agile enough to simply get behind the bear and place it in a choke hold. The only issue would be is it strong enough (which I believe) and it could at the same time leverage to break the bears back.

Note the BF leaped twice to cover 30 yards, knocked the pig against a tree with one hand, and then pounded it to death with blows "like slamming your fist on a table top". This all happened within about four seconds.

You realize that 30 yards, is 90 feet... and that a report like this one, is far from credible.

I agree that part is suspect. But people exaggerate, especially when they're scared. So, just as with a height discrepancy, it doesnt kill the report for me.

Many years ago I watched a video - I think it was something like Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom - where an orangutan got into a fight with a large cat (leopard or jaguar). It was the most ferocious animal fight I've ever seen. The orangutan "rode" on the back of the cat while simultaneously beating the cat with his fists and biting the cat on the back of his neck. I don't remember if the orangutan killed the cat, but he definitely whipped him. I remember that I saw this video after I had seen the movie "Every Which Way But Loose" which featured the orangutan named "Clyde" who was so funny. Seeing the wild orangutan fight with such ferocity was a shocking contrast to the one in the movie. I think most of us have a sanitized view of wild animal behavior.

Based on that orangutan's fighting skills with the cat and extrapolating the size of a Sasquatch, a fight with a grizzly, would be a battle of biblical proportions!

Note the BF leaped twice to cover 30 yards, knocked the pig against a tree with one hand, and then pounded it to death with blows "like slamming your fist on a table top". This all happened within about four seconds.

You realize that 30 yards, is 90 feet... and that a report like this one, is far from credible.

Totally disagree. Ninety feet? Something like this happens ninety feet away from me, I'm not missing a trick. Besides which: one thing one must always be alert to in reports is the potential inaccuracy of witness estimates. They can't be take for salt by themselves. What if it was really sixty? Or closer? I don't think people are great judges of distance.

0

"Learning how to think" really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. it means being conscious and aware enough to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot or will not exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed...David Foster Wallace

I dont know which would win a fight, I tend to think the grizzly being a "wilder animal" would have the avantage, but that only because I havent seen a Sasquatch and tend to think of them as more human or less "wild", which of course may be completely wrong. But having said that, a seven hundred pound all muscled up big guy with the ability to use available tools, clubs and rocks, and intelligence to use and plan a strategy could mess up about any 'wild'
animal in a hurry with a eight foot five inch tree trunk, or a few ten pound rocks thrown accurately from fifty to a hundred miles an hour. Assuming the use of and accuracy thereof and the velocity of the thrown rocks being comparable to a human athlete.

Note the BF leaped twice to cover 30 yards, knocked the pig against a tree with one hand, and then pounded it to death with blows "like slamming your fist on a table top". This all happened within about four seconds.

You realize that 30 yards, is 90 feet... and that a report like this one, is far from credible.

I should also have reminded that in the case of this report, the guy was looking through a 9 power rifle scope.

0

"Learning how to think" really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. it means being conscious and aware enough to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot or will not exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed...David Foster Wallace

Ferocious? They have swiped peoples heads off, twisted dogs spines i the opposite direction, thrown full grown men to the floor, beat wild boar to death, chased down deer and yanked there legs off, put dents in mobile homes with there fists, invaded houses, smashed windows, ripped doors of there hinges, reached into cars and carried off people never to be seen again, I'd say they can be ferocious, but invincible? No, there massive frame, thick bones and heavy coating of muscle makes them resistant to bullets and most injuries, but we have enough reports of bullets wounding them and killing them to agree with the Schwarzenegger school of thinking, namely, "if it bleeds, we can kill it".

bigteddy, I think what you meant to type was that "we have reports of...*insert feats of strength/aggression here*" I'm far more swayed to the "believer" side than the sceptic side, but its such ludicrous claims that cause what may be decent reports to lose their credency. Lets be honest, if there were dogs that had been twisted in half like a christmas cracker or people being carried off into the night, with witnesses (to which there must be or these reports wouldn't surface) then there would be a manhunt (pardon the pun). The best thing that anyone on the "believer" or "pro squatch" side can do is to err on the side of common sense until you have physical evidence. Believing isn't crazy, believing every sensationalised half assed report is. Sasquatch steals bus off the road and jet packs off into the deep forest...could happen!

bigteddy, I think what you meant to type was that "we have reports of...*insert feats of strength/aggression here*" I'm far more swayed to the "believer" side than the sceptic side, but its such ludicrous claims that cause what may be decent reports to lose their credency. Lets be honest, if there were dogs that had been twisted in half like a christmas cracker or people being carried off into the night, with witnesses (to which there must be or these reports wouldn't surface) then there would be a manhunt (pardon the pun). The best thing that anyone on the "believer" or "pro squatch" side can do is to err on the side of common sense until you have physical evidence. Believing isn't crazy, believing every sensationalised half assed report is. Sasquatch steals bus off the road and jet packs off into the deep forest...could happen!

Hey man, just reporting what people have claimed, don't believe half of em myself.

Fair enough bigteddy, I apologise if I came across as sarcy or aggressive. I just think that surely most people with half an ounce of common sense can determine which of these reports have a ring of possible plausability about them, and those which wouldnt be out of place in a sci fi book. I definately think that as long as we have people creating these ludicrous reports (and equally, people believing them) then bigfoot/sasquatch will be continue to be looked upon with ridicule and contempt by "accepted" branches of science.

I think that the inability to prove to the public that they exist may say more about human intelligence than it says about that of the sasquatch.

0

"Learning how to think" really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. it means being conscious and aware enough to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot or will not exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed...David Foster Wallace